Ex Parte Buff et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 22, 2017

13663975 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O.Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13/663,975 10/30/2012 Scott Eaker Buff HI12-128 3984 21495 7590 08/24/2017 CORNING INCORPORATED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT, SP-TI-3-1 CORNING, NY 14831 EXAMINER RADKOWSKI, PETER ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2883 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/24/2017 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): u sdocket @ corning .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SCOTT EAKER BUFF, TERRY LEE COOKE, CHRISTOPHER SHAWN HOUSER, RONALD ALAN LEONARD, and BRAIN KEITH RHONEY Appeal 2016-003973 Application 13/663,975 Technology Center 2800 Before TERRY J. OWENS, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’ rejection of claims 1—35. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Invention The Appellants claim a fiber optic apparatus and method. Claims 1 and 29 are illustrative: Appeal 2016-003973 Application 13/663,975 1. A high-density port tap fiber optic apparatus, comprising: a chassis having a size based on U space; wherein the chassis is configured to support a live fiber optic connection density of at least ninety-eight (98) live fiber optic connections per U space based on using at least two live simplex fiber optic component or at least one live duplex fiber optic component; and wherein the chassis is further configured to support a tap fiber optic connection density of at least ninety-eight (98) passive tap fiber optic connections in the U space supporting the live fiber optic connection density. 29. A method of supporting a live and passive tap fiber optic connection bandwidth, comprising: supporting a live full-duplex connection bandwidth of at least nine hundred sixty-two (962) Gigabits per second per U space using at least two live simplex fiber optic components or one duplex fiber optic component; and supporting a passive taps connection bandwidth of at least nine hundred sixty-two (962) Gigabits per second in the U space supporting the live full-duplex connection bandwidth. The References Phillips et al., US 6,088,497 July 11,2000 Bhalla et al., US 6,327,059 B1 Dec. 4, 2001 Smith et al., US 2004/0086252 Al May 6, 2004 Cooke et al., US 2010/0322581 Al Dec. 23,2010 The Rejections Claims 1--35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Smith in view of Cooke, Phillips and Bhalla. OPINION We reverse the rejection. We need address only the independent claims (1, 14, 17 and 29). Claims 1 and 14 require supporting 1) a live fiber optic connection density of at least 98 live fiber optic connections per 2 Appeal 2016-003973 Application 13/663,975 U space, and 2) a tap fiber optic connection density of at least 98 passive fiber optic connections in the U space supporting the live fiber optic connection density.1 Claims 17 and 29 require supporting 1) a full-duplex live connection bandwidth of at least 962 gigabits per second per U space, and 2) a passive tap connection bandwidth of at least 962 gigabits per second per U space. The Examiner concludes: Contrary to appellant’s arguments [Br. 9-12], the prior art combination Smith in view of Cooke, further in view of Phillips and further in view of Bhalla clearly renders obvious a tap fiber connection density of at least 98 passive tap fiber connections. ■ Smith teaches in figure 1 and paragraph [0050] an optical fiber tap panel/module 10. ■ Smith teaches in paragraph [0074] that the tap density of the module can be increased by “mounting additional adapters.” ■ Cooke teaches in figures 10A, 11, 14, and 15 optical fiber modules that fit in industry-standard U-spaces and that can accommodate varied numbers of front and back face optical connector adapters. Cooke, pars. [0043], [0056] and [0066]-[0071], ■ Cooke teaches in paragraph [0063] “providing at least seventy-two (72) duplex transmission and reception pairs in a 1-U space.” Id. Consequently, contrary to appellant’s arguments, because Smith teaches increasing “the tap density” of Smith’s fiber tap module by mounting additional adapters while Cooke 1 The Appellants state that “fiber optic networks often include separated connection points linking optical fibers to provide ‘live fiber’ from one connection point to another” (Spec. 17), the live fiber optic connections are monitored via a passive fiber optic connection (Spec. 1 55), and “[a] U space is defined as having a 1.75 inch height and refers to equipment intended for mounting in a 19-inch rack or a 23-inch equipment rack” (Spec. 112). 3 Appeal 2016-003973 Application 13/663,975 teaches “providing at least seventy-two” duplex pairs, the prior art combination Smith in view of Cooke, further in view of Phillips and further in view of Bhalla clearly renders obvious a tap fiber connection density of at least 98 passive tap fiber connections [(Ans. 8)]. Consequently, contrary to appellant’s arguments, the prior art combination of Smith in view of Cook, further in view of Phillips, and further in view of Bhalla renders obvious the limits [sic, limitations] recited in independent claims 14, 17 and 29 because the prior art combination clearly motivates and enables a tap fiber connection density of at least 98 passive tap fiber connections and a fiber tap configuration capable of a date [sic, datal rate of at least nine hundred sixty-two (962) Gigabits per second in a l-l space in full-duplex mode. See discussion regarding claim 1 [(Ans. 12)]. As stated in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007), “‘[Rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness’” (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). The Examiner does not explain how a teaching by Smith of increasing tap density by mounting additional adapters, a teaching by Cooke of providing at least seventy-two duplex pairs, and unspecified disclosures by Phillips and Bhalla support a conclusion that the Appellants’ recited density of passive tap fiber optic connections (or passive tap connection bandwidth) would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The Examiner’s mere conclusory statement regarding obviousness does not provide the required articulated reasoning with rational underpinning 4 Appeal 2016-003973 Application 13/663,975 supporting the obviousness conclusion. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection. DECISION/ORDER The rejection of claims 1—35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Smith in view of Cooke, Phillips and Bhalla is reversed. It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is reversed. REVERSED 5